# Farrar v. Tribune Publishing Co.

> Washington Supreme Court · January 19, 1961 · 57 Wash. 2d 549

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9794348

## Case

- **Full name:** Albert E. Farrar, Respondent, v. Tribune Publishing Company, Appellant
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 19, 1961
- **Citations:** 57 Wash. 2d 549; 358 P.2d 792; 1961 Wash. LEXIS 399
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hunter
- **Judges:** Foster, Hill, Mallery, Hunter
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9794348

## Opinion text

Hunter, J.
(dissenting) — The majority has announced.
the rule that evidence of lack of malice may be introduced to mitigate the amount of damages accruing by reason of' mental suffering and injury to feelings. In the abstract, this is a correct statement of the law. However, it is applicable only where the mental suffering and injury to feelings results from the maliciousness of the publisher of the-libelous statements.
In the instant case, there was no allegation that the publication was malicious. Moreover, the record discloses no-evidence that the respondent suffered any injury to his feelings by reason of the publication being malicious. Nor is there anything in the record from which it might be-inferred that the mental suffering and injury to feelings-resulted from the maliciousness of the publisher.
There being no claim for damages for injured feelings,, by reason of the malice of the publisher, there are no damages that can be mitigated by showing lack of malice on the part of the appellant. The introduction of such evidence-under these circumstances would be wholly immaterial, and have only the effect of confusing the jury. Moreover, RCW 4.36.130, permitting introduction of evidence to mitigate damages, cannot apply if there are no damages to-mitigate. The trial court, therefore, correctly disallowed' the introduction of evidence that the publication was not malicious.
The judgment on the jury verdict should be affirmed.
June 20, 1961. Petition for rehearing denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9794348. Public record. Not legal advice.